538 F.Supp.3d 429
D.N.J.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (including two New Jersey residents) brought a putative class action alleging state-law consumer-protection and fraud claims based on alleged use of defeat devices and misrepresentations about emissions in BMW diesel vehicles (X5 xDrive35d and 335d).
- Defendants: BMW AG (German manufacturer), BMW of North America (BMW NA, NJ-based distributor), Robert Bosch GmbH (Bosch GmbH, German), and Robert Bosch LLC (Bosch LLC, U.S.). Plaintiffs allege Bosch entities developed defeat devices and supplied them to BMW.
- BMW AG and Bosch GmbH moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); BMW NA and Bosch LLC previously litigated and remained in the case.
- Key factual dispute: whether BMW AG’s relationship with its New Jersey-based U.S. distributor (BMW NA) and BMW AG’s role in developing the “Efficient Dynamics/Clean Diesel” initiative constitute purposeful availment of New Jersey; Bosch GmbH’s contacts with New Jersey are far more attenuated.
- The court applied the Third Circuit’s three-part specific-jurisdiction test (purposeful availment; relatedness; fairness) but held that Supreme Court precedent in Ford altered the Third Circuit’s prior causation-focused relatedness standard.
- Rulings: BMW AG’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied (without prejudice) and jurisdictional discovery was authorized; Bosch GmbH’s motion was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of personal-jurisdiction defense | Plaintiffs argued BMW AG/Bosch GmbH participated in prior briefing and thus waived the defense | BMW AG/Bosch GmbH argued they preserved the defense and only joined limited procedural briefs | Court: No waiver — participation was procedural and did not constitute litigating the merits |
| Whether BMW AG purposefully availed itself of New Jersey via BMW NA | BMW AG used BMW NA as its U.S. gateway; BMW AG developed branding/technology and directed U.S. market strategy, so contacts flow through NJ | BMW AG argued BMW NA operates independently and BMW AG lacks operational presence in NJ | Court: Plaintiffs made a plausible showing of purposeful availment sufficient to permit jurisdictional discovery |
| Whether Bosch GmbH is subject to jurisdiction in NJ | Plaintiffs alleged Bosch GmbH designed devices with U.S. market in mind and coordinated with BMW generally | Bosch GmbH pointed to lack of specific contacts with NJ and that any coordination occurred outside NJ (and through Bosch LLC in Michigan) | Court: Dismissed Bosch GmbH for lack of personal jurisdiction — plaintiffs’ allegations were too generalized and conclusory |
| Standard for "arise out of or relate to" (relatedness) after Ford | Plaintiffs argued Ford permits jurisdiction without strict causation between specific in-forum acts and claims | Defendants argued Third Circuit causation framework still controls and plaintiffs must show the particular statements/vehicles originated from BMW AG | Court: Ford displaced the Third Circuit’s strict causation requirement; a looser relatedness standard applies, supporting jurisdictional discovery as plaintiffs plausibly linked BMW AG’s top-down campaign to NJ contacts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (Supreme Court clarified that strict causation between in-forum contacts and claims is not required for specific jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (parent–subsidiary contacts do not automatically subject a parent to general jurisdiction where not "at home")
- O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007) (Third Circuit three-part specific-jurisdiction framework)
- D'Jamoos ex rel. Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94 (3d Cir. 2009) (parent's use of U.S. subsidiary as market gateway supports jurisdictional analysis)
- Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir. 2004) (New Jersey's long-arm jurisdiction analyzed coextensively with federal due process)
- Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003) (prima facie showing and entitlement to jurisdictional discovery where plaintiff's allegations suggest requisite contacts)
- Carteret Sav. Bank, FA v. Shushan, 954 F.2d 141 (3d Cir. 1992) (fair play and substantial justice factors for reasonableness of jurisdiction)
- Eurofins Pharma US Holdings v. BioAlliance Pharma SA, 623 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2010) (plaintiff's relatively light burden on prima facie showing at pre-discovery stage)